Unlimited contributions taint our democracy

Who sets Lansing’s agenda? Gov. Rick Snyder is term-limited, and that means power is shifting to the Michigan Legislature, where the GOP holds a solid majority in both chambers — and thus to House Speaker Kevin Cotter and Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof.

Though all three men are Republicans, both the House and Senate have shown willingness to buck Snyder’s agenda in recent votes on prevailing wages and e-cigarettes and a hearing on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

So how we’ll pay to fix Michigan’s crumbling roads; negotiate legal protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Michiganders; reform Detroit Public Schools, or set teacher evaluation standards are likely to be determined by Meekhof and Cotter — and maybe the folks who fund their campaigns.

Campaign finance is complicated, but it’s worth understanding: Each kind of fund-raising committee is required to register with a county, state or federal oversight agency, and each kind of committee is subject to different donation and contribution restrictions. Donations to candidate committees — those established by the candidate in pursuit of a seat — are capped at relatively low-dollar amounts.

Caucus political action committees — like those affiliated with the state House Republicans or state Senate Democrats — can accept larger contributions (like political action committees affiliated with candidates or causes), and can make larger donations in turn. Super PACs are largely free from such restrictions.

Rich Robinson of the watchdog group Michigan Campaign Finance Network explains: “When you look at those several committees side by side, you see churning, caucus members’ PACs feeding back into the caucus committee, Meekhof moving $182,000 from one of his PACs to the other PAC, so if they’re maxed out (on donations), they can max out again with the other committee.”

Between 2010 and 2014, candidate committees and political action committees (there are three) associated with Meekhof took in $1.3 million. Between 2012 and 2014, Cotter’s candidate committee and PAC accepted $699,360.

That means when it’s time to wield influence, both men can command attention from their colleagues in the House and Senate. And when special interests come calling, they’ll likely find an open door.

Both parties guilty

Let’s be absolutely clear: Accepting political donations from special interests isn’t illegal, and it’s not wrong. They’re a fundamental part of our political system. But secretive contributions, and regulations and maneuvers that allow for unlimited contributions, taint our democracy.

It’s too simple to draw a direct line from donation to action — campaign donors seek out like-minded candidates or incumbents to support, people already sympathetic to the donor’s goals. But study the pattern of donations and contributions, and it’s difficult not to see a pattern of influence emerge. Campaign contributions allow candidates access to voters, and a healthy PAC war chest (plus access to so-called dark money — contributions and expenditures that aren’t subject to much, if any, disclosure) allows a legislator to build support among fellow lawmakers. Cotter, it’s worth noting, won his leadership job with the support of three newly elected, self-described tea party legislators — his PAC made campaign contributions to each.

For donors, Robinson says, “It’s more like this: ‘I understand that you understand and support my interests, you know what I don’t like, and if you go there, you’ll lose my financial support.’ I don’t think it’s a to-do list, and if you check all the boxes, I’ll get you a big check. It’s more subtle than that, but not a whole lot more subtle.”

Because term limits mean a lawmaker has less time to establish connections with voters, campaign cash and the access it buys is more important than ever before.

Term limits put legislators on a race for quick money, sprinting to stay elected for as long as they’re allowed — six years in the House and eight years in the Senate — and then to find their next job.

And so, the institutional knowledge and the relationships we need our legislators to wield instead lands with lobbyists, often former lawmakers, who in turn help those special interests navigate our money-driven political machine.

A system intended to rid our legislative halls of career politicians has instead emboldened campaign contributors and led to shortsighted policy.